Britain Why Conservatives conserve nothing

Shipmaster Sane

You have been weighed
This youtuber talks about why the so called UK are basically worthless.
I now agree.



I’m starting to think this is why fascism and clericalism were large scale movements in the early 20th century. Because many conservatives recognized the same problem.
Unfortunately third positionist politics has the shadow of the swastika and the Holocaust hanging it over it.
So the liberal leftist beast never stops running.
I’m starting to think we do need to some sort of “revolutionary” movement. That actually seeks to smash the liberal-left consensus and world order.
Mussolini was a dyed in the wool pinko newspaper edgelord, Hitler was an autistic art school cringelord. They were both marxists. This is not a third position. The Liberal leftist is the puppet of the facist despot, and always is.



 
D

Deleted member 88

Guest
Mussolini was a dyed in the wool pinko newspaper edgelord, Hitler was an autistic art school cringelord. They were both marxists. This is not a third position. The Liberal leftist is the puppet of the facist despot, and always is.
Arghh.

Why Sane why?

Hitler and Mussolini were both anti communists.

Fascism isn’t communism or leftism.

That’s just so fucking retarded.
 

Shipmaster Sane

You have been weighed
Hitler and Mussolini were both anti communists.
Killing communists is the only thing communists do well.

"State intervention in economic production arises when private initiative is insufficient, or when the interests of the state are involved. This intervention may take the form of control or direct management."
-Benito Mussolini
" Fascism: Doctrines and Institutions "

"Fascism establishes the real equality of individuals before the nation, the object of the regime in the economic field is to ensure higher social justice for the whole of the italian people. What does Social Justice mean? It means work guaranteed, fair wages, decent homes"
-Benito Mussolini, speech in Milan.

"The outbreak of a Socialist revolution in one country will cause the others to imitate it so as to strengthen the Proletariat and prevent the Bourgeoisie from attempting any armed intervention"
-Benito Mussolini
"The Myth of the Nation and the Vision of Revolution"



How about a couple of snazzy anti communist policies from the Nazi economic doctrine! You have read the 25 point plan, right?
10. The activity of individual may not clash with the interests of the whole, but must proceed within the framework of the whole for the benefit for the general good.
13. We demand the nationalization of all Trusts.
14. We demand profit sharing in large industries.
17. We demand the enactment of a law to expropriate from the owners without compensation any land needed for the common purpose, the abolishment of ground rents, and the prohibition of all land speculation


Ahhhh, anti communism. Nothing like folding all industry and private property into the state for the good of the collective commune for the purpose of anti communism.


You cannot be anti communist and subsume private industry and economy into the government, that is definitionally communist.
 

S'task

Renegade Philosopher
Administrator
Staff Member
Founder
You can't apply something concerning UK conservatism to US conservatism. They're two quite different movements both in origination and ideology.

I would also posit that the premise is flawed. Compare the UK prior to the very Conservative Prime Ministry of Margate Thatcher to after her. She made some DRAMATIC changes that arguably returned the UK to a much earlier place economically and socially than it was before her Prime Ministry. You also have the entire Brexit situation that is an inherently conservative movement which won, despite the heel dragging from the entrenched bureaucracy.

In fact, as I've pointed out numerous times before, the entire idea that Conservatives have failed doesn't mesh well with actual reality. On numerous issues Conservatives have won definitively, or have been systematically changing the tide over the long term... while on other issues yes, they haven't held the line. But then, I also have to continually point out that Conservatives have been fighting from a position of disadvantage because, for some reason, people think Conservatives are as old as Progressives and Liberals, as seen here:
As we know it, conservatism evolved alongside classical liberalism, which was an ideology far more interested in the freedoms of the individual instead of overhauling civilisation in general.

This position is fundamentally wrong. Classical Liberalism developed in the late 18th century. It was the dominate political ideology of the 18th century UK Whigs and the US Founding Fathers of ALL stripes. On the other hand, Conservatism as an ideological movement developed in the 1960s directly in response to the growth of Marxist Progressivism and the Sexual Revolution. By that point Hollywood, Academia, the Media, and the entrenched Bureaucracy was already thoroughly infiltrated and corrupted by Progressive Ideology spurred by both active measures by the USSR and by passive collapse of academia and the Church that began in the early 20th century with the takeover of universities and mainline denominations by Modernists who drove out the Fundamentalists.

What this means is that when one judges Conservatism one shouldn't be going "why has it failed so much", but, frankly, one should be asking "how the HELL did is succeed AT ALL."
 

Fleiur

Well-known member
NAP?

Also, 'degenerate' in who's eyes? And since when has humanity ever had 'objective values'?

Every culture developed to fit it's own geographical, geological, ecological, and socio-political surroundings, which resulted in a wide variety of 'objective values' guiding different groups.

Humans social values are products of the environment they were molded in, not the result of any 'objective values'.
Yet, every culture have had similar mores and taboos. Almost every culture developed monogamy as the norm, looked down on drunkenness as a vice, and saw children and the family as important. Those that didn't have these sort of mores failed.

Being left alone is all well and good when society believes that property and individual freedom are untouchable. That comes from objective morality. Once you get subjective morality, you get Antifa twisting the meaning of words to make you the bad guy while they burn your house and take your stuff.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Most White nationalists tend to be Lefty retards pretending to be right wing.


Right\left dualism is a massive political simplification that means completely different things depending on time and place.

You can easily separate even just western modern political movements by 3 very significant preferences:

1.High/low economic interventionism and regulation
2.High/low cultural-social interventionism and regulation
3.Ideological direction of any cultural-social interventionism present

International and national socialism more or less agree in their stance about the first 2 issues. Their only core difference is in the third - the former preferring ideas of dramatically changing all aspects of society according to some variation of marxist ideals, the latter preferring more traditional ideals, and forcing them upon the society no less than the others do with theirs.

The problem with UK conservatives and also US RINOs is that they are notoriously unwilling to put up serious opposition to the left on anything other than point 1 issues.

For comparison, stereotypical hardline religious conservatives would be low to medium on 1, medium to high on 2, and traditional on 3, libertarians would be low on 1 and 2, and with variations on 3 (here you get left/right libertarian division).
And for more exotic options, some european countries have social conservatives, who are like the stereotypical ones, but are medium-high on 1, hard to distinguish from socialdemocrats in that regard.
So, there is a whole lot of nuance missing with mere left/right dualism.
 
Last edited:

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
Yet, every culture have had similar mores and taboos. Almost every culture developed monogamy as the norm, looked down on drunkenness as a vice, and saw children and the family as important. Those that didn't have these sort of mores failed.

Being left alone is all well and good when society believes that property and individual freedom are untouchable. That comes from objective morality. Once you get subjective morality, you get Antifa twisting the meaning of words to make you the bad guy while they burn your house and take your stuff.
Again, you are over-simplifying things, and also making assumptions that are not necessarily true.

Not every culture developed the same or similar social values; your conceit only really applies to the large scale cultures of certain western groups.

My view encompasses far more than that, from tribes deep in the Amazon or high in Papua New Guinea, to the Eastern groups like Shintos and Sikhs, and recognizes all morality/values are subjective to the surroundings, situations, and environmental realities they are faced with.

Clinging to the idea of any sort of 'objective values' is part of why trad cons are ill-equipped to handle the modern Far-Left and Marxists, while classical liberals and libertarians can fight them more effectively.
 

Duke Nukem

Hail to the king baby
Eh that’s not true?

Like I’ve read a lot of WN material over the years, it’s anything but leftist.
White Nationalists are hypocrites, they hate multiculturalism yet they want all whites to unite, they hate welfare for non whites yet they want welfare for whites only. They love to call people degenerates when they're degenerates themselves.
 

Arch Dornan

Oh, lovely. They've sent me a mo-ron.
White Nationalists are hypocrites, they hate multiculturalism yet they want all whites to unite, they hate welfare for non whites yet they want welfare for whites only. They love to call people degenerates when they're degenerates themselves.
So just like everyone else peddling their beliefs before reality turns them to commit hypocrital actions out of their base desires?
 

Sailor.X

Cold War Veteran
Founder
Being conservative is all well and good. But when being conservative prevents you from solving a problem that needs you to think outside of the box. That strength can become a liability. Always be ready to adapt to the unexpected.
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
Again, you are over-simplifying things, and also making assumptions that are not necessarily true.

Not every culture developed the same or similar social values; your conceit only really applies to the large scale cultures of certain western groups.

My view encompasses far more than that, from tribes deep in the Amazon or high in Papua New Guinea, to the Eastern groups like Shintos and Sikhs, and recognizes all morality/values are subjective to the surroundings, situations, and environmental realities they are faced with.

Clinging to the idea of any sort of 'objective values' is part of why trad cons are ill-equipped to handle the modern Far-Left and Marxists, while classical liberals and libertarians can fight them more effectively.

I'm curious as to whether or not you can name a culture where murder, rape, and theft are not seen as bad.

And no, having specific 'otherized' groups who aren't considered to really be people does not count.
 

Husky_Khan

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer.
Founder
Sotnik
Yea NAP is like an ancap thing.

Don't concede so easily. NAP is very prominent in libertarian thinking as well. (y)

It was directly inspired by the works of Murray Rothbard. He's a foundational economist of libertarian thinking andfrom the Austrian School of Economics.

I understand that libertarians (or more precisely 'classical' liberals) have been trying to gatekeep Austrian economic thought out of libertarianism so they can justify everything from strong borders to national health care to public schools etc but NAP has always been a foundational value of libertarianism even if not in a literal sense, certainly in an ideological one.

And libertarianism by and large is terrible at conserving traditions and founding principles. They're fine for when its a war of words but little beyond that when more then intellectual debate maybe required.
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
I'm curious as to whether or not you can name a culture where murder, rape, and theft are not seen as bad.

And no, having specific 'otherized' groups who aren't considered to really be people does not count.
Mongols, for one. And they were pretty fucking successful, given 1/3 people in Asia is a direct decendants of Chingus or Koblai.

And I'd point to the Spartan's as well for how they viewed theft as a survival instinct needed for the battlefield, which influenced a lot of their culture.

As well, monogamy has not been the norm. Before recently marriages were mostly about inheritance and building power bases, not love or religious teachings. Having a mistress or two on the side, who's kids weren't in for inheritance, was rather the norm for most men with enough wealth to marry.
 

Prince Ire

Section XIII
Clinging to the idea of any sort of 'objective values' is part of why trad cons are ill-equipped to handle the modern Far-Left and Marxists, while classical liberals and libertarians can fight them more effectively.
Lol sure, keep telling yourself that, as classical liberalism collapses everywhere in the face of progressivism despite being the ruling ideology of the US since its founding.
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
Lol sure, keep telling yourself that, as classical liberalism collapses everywhere in the face of progressivism despite being the ruling ideology of the US since its founding.
Progressivism is not something that can be fought effectively by trad cons, because most trad cons do not want to adapt strategies or tactics effective against progressives.

Most 'classical liberals' these days are part of the Right now, because the progressives forced them out with their insanity, and are trying to help the right fight more effectively.

The longer trad cons try to cling to past paradigms, instead of learning to adapt to current realities, the less relevant they will be on the Right going forward.
 

Lord Sovereign

Well-known member
This position is fundamentally wrong.

How? Being a check and balance on progress is literally the ideological underpinnings of conservatism, at least in a British context. This, by the way, stems from the Tories being royalists back in the 17th century and looking to preserve the crown and church from the Whigs (or, "liberals"). This would come to a head with the French Revolution, where Edmund Burke (a former liberal himself) would become the midwife to conservatism as we know it.
 

Aldarion

Neoreactionary Monarchist


This youtuber talks about why the so called Conservatives of UK are basically worthless.

It can be applied to anywhere though.

What do you guys think? Do you agree?


It is quite simple, actually. Politics, especially in a democracy, come down to either consensus or compromise. If you have one side which constantly seeks change, and other which merely seeks to preserve the existing situation, then compromise will always lead to a little bit of change.

In short: conservatives are useful idiots. If you want to maintain a balance in society without progress pushing everything off the bridge into abyss, you need traditionalists to balance progressives out, not conservatives.

How? Being a check and balance on progress is literally the ideological underpinnings of conservatism, at least in a British context. This, by the way, stems from the Tories being royalists back in the 17th century and looking to preserve the crown and church from the Whigs (or, "liberals"). This would come to a head with the French Revolution, where Edmund Burke (a former liberal himself) would become the midwife to conservatism as we know it.

See above for why conservatives simply cannot balance progressives.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top